Vertical Agreements Case

In July 2015, the Commission published a statement of objections addressed to several major US film studios and one of Europe`s largest pay-TV companies, on the grounds that the licensing agreements between them hamper the provision of pay-TV services across eu borders, both via satellite and online. In July 2016, the Commission accepted the obligations to close the investigation into one of the major US film studios and an action for annulment of the Commission`s decision, brought by one of the studio`s exclusive licensees, was dismissed by the General Court in December 2018 (see question 28). Although the European Commission has recently taken relatively few enforcement measures with regard to restrictions on online sales, there are a number of cases worth discussing. In its October 2011 judgment in the Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmétique case, the ECJ found that a contractual clause that assimilated an absolute prohibition for buyers in a selective distribution network to sell contract products to end-users via the internet constituted a targeted restriction of competition that could not benefit from the safe port of the vertical block exemption. However, the ECJ left it to the French national court to decide whether such a clause could benefit from an individual exemption if the conditions laid down in Article 101(3) TFEU were fulfilled. Under what circumstances do the rules on vertical restraints apply to agreements between a parent company and an affiliated undertaking (or between related undertakings of the same parent company)? Requests for refusal of transaction are dealt with by the provision of the Law on Vertical Restraints. A refusal of a transaction relates to an agreement that limits or limits, in one way or another, the person or persons from whom or to whom the goods are bought and sold; It is prohibited if it causes or will likely cause AAEC in India. Parity clauses are not explicitly included in the Competition Act. In its recent report on the e-commerce market study in India (2020), the ICC established that parity clauses under section 3(4) of the Competition Act can be judged on the basis of a common-sense framework. Consequently, as with other vertical restraints, parity clauses are not considered to be in themselves anti-competitive and are assessed on the basis of the factors laid down in Article 19(3) of the Law on competition, for actual or potential AAEC.

These factors include both the potentially anti-competitive effects that may be caused by the exclusive supply agreement (e.g. B the creation of barriers to market entry for new entrants, the expulsion of existing competitors and the blocking of internal markets); and promoting competition (such as benefits to consumers, improving the production of goods or the provision of services; and technical, scientific and economic development through the production or distribution of goods or services). Indeed, the ICC has also found that price parity clauses imposed on competing e-commerce platforms can avoid the problem of parasitism. . . .

Posted in: Uncategorized